Correct me if I'm wrong - the various Wikimedia projects have different aims, but you can generally describe them as the accumulation of information to community specific standards so that this information can then be displayed to the public. Commons, on the other hand, is a service provided not to the public generally but to Wikimedia projects - therefore, the policies that apply to externally useful articles/reports/books etc. need not necessarily apply to the storage of media at Commons.
I think it would be a mistake for the Foundation board to declare, by fiat, that all Wikimedia projects must adhere to a specific content policy (aside from legal policies such as copyright protection etc).
~Nate
On Dec 5, 2007 12:24 PM, Yoni Weiden yonidebest@gmail.com wrote:
I am happy to see that the images were removed from Ariel Sharon's page. Thats one setp. However, I still have a problem with categories like http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Caricatures_of_Ariel_Sharon http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Politics_of_the_Palestinian_terri... and such. There images should be hosted by Wikimedia, except for one or two images - for educational reasons (like I said - the Hebrew Wikipedia has one cartoon example on the artist's page).
Regarding double standard - I have no idea whats going on in other pages. I can imagine that this artist and others have infected other pages too, incl. Bush's page, and even Hitler's page. These pages should be *clean* from racist images that promote nothing Wikimedia stands for.
I would like Wikimedia board members to set a resolution to force Commons to create some sort of NPOV policy and to force them to clean their site - Ariel Sharon's page, Bush's page and even Hitler's page. Futhermore, I think the foundation should publish a basic NPOV policy that will bind all projects.
Hosting such pictures in the name of education is taking the word to a new and unwanted level.
Thanks, Yoni
2007/12/5, Nathan Awrich nawrich@gmail.com:
I'm not a Commons member, but am an en:wiki member of the Israel and Judaism projects (to illustrate where I'm coming from on this issue). I think that NPOV should be not be applied to Commons. A media storage space (even one with verification and other processes) shouldn't have a neutral or any other point of view. Its simply storage. If the cartoons are actually used anywhere, then they should adhere to the POV-related and other policies applicable to where they are used.
An issue unrelated to racism, NPOV, etc. is proper categorisation. That is the purview of Commons, and the images probably belong in some more specific category than images of Ariel Sharon.
~Nate
On Dec 5, 2007 11:06 AM, Riana wiki.riana@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/12/2007, Christiano Moreschi moreschiwikiman@hotmail.co.uk
wrote:
[...] There's a word for that we use at enwiki: POV-pushing.
I wish every discussion along these lines didn't turn into a enWP v/s <insert smaller project here> pissing contest, but meh. Had a brief look
and
[[commons:George W. Bush#Cartoons and Caricatures]] turned up. So which accusation do we prefer, Commons folks - non-NPOV, or double standards?
:)
-- Riana
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Riana http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Riana
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l